The Stealth Hippopotamus:It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?

Your heartfelt appeal to our better natures has touched me old chap. From henceforth I shall endeavor to always find the good in my fellow man, even if they are cynically appealing to our better natures to score partisan points.

A February Gallup survey found that 49 percent thought it was a mistake and 48 percent did not. That was a radical shift from November 2001, when 9 percent thought it was a mistake while 89 percent did not.

This just tells you how fickle and shortsighted the American public is about war.

I have chickenhawk friends telling me they think Taft is weak for not starting WW III w/Pootie Tang for Crimea.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?

So we should't take note of the fact that one administration started 2 wars which killed thousands of Americans and orders of magnitude more Iraqis and Afghanis, and that his successor ended those wars? Remembering and acknowledging this reality is "snark and partisanship"?

DamnYankees:So we should't take note of the fact that one administration started 2 wars which killed thousands of Americans and orders of magnitude more Iraqis and Afghanis, and that his successor ended those wars? Remembering and acknowledging this reality is "snark and partisanship"?

A February Gallup survey found that 49 percent thought [the war in Afghanistan] was a mistake and 48 percent did not. That was a radical shift from November 2001, when 9 percent thought it was a mistake while 89 percent did not.

This just tells you how fickle and shortsighted the American public is about war.

I have chickenhawk friends telling me they think Taft is weak for not starting WW III w/Pootie Tang for Crimea.

/notthisshiatagain.jpg

Fixed so it's clear what "it" referred to.

We had a thread about that poll before, and the number is still problematic since it is unclear what it actually says.

When 49 percent of people said "yes, it was mistake" they could have meant one (or both) of two things:

1) With the benefit of hindsight, the result of our actions we not what I wanted, and therefore I believe, given what I know now, that I would have preferred we took different action

2) Even given only what we knew then, but with the benefit of emotional distance, the decision was one we should not have made at the time.

I'd agree with the first point, that with how things turned out, it would have been better not to go to war. However I still believe that harboring Al Qaeda and allowing them to attack the US like they did was an act of war, and retaliation was appropriate. Given competent leadership I believe that the decision to go to war at the time would still be an appropriate response, and preferable to no military action. But given the poll's broad wording, I don't know what people meant by their response.

/oh, but no deaths is undeniably great, it's just sad that it's news, it should be the other way.

So where are all the limbots and beckheads to tell us how Obama is "disrespecting the military" by not constantly deploying ground troops to useless expanses of blasted desert for the Jesus? I mean, you people thirst for blood, dead American blood, and constantly piss and moan when our troops aren't dying somewhere.

Hint: Born in the 70s, and not once in my life has a troop "died for my freedom". They've died for Dick Cheney's profits, and Reagan's desire to arm terrorists.

Hell, the Coast Guard protects our freedom more than most of the military.

A February Gallup survey found that 49 percent thought [the war in Afghanistan] was a mistake and 48 percent did not. That was a radical shift from November 2001, when 9 percent thought it was a mistake while 89 percent did not.

This just tells you how fickle and shortsighted the American public is about war.

I have chickenhawk friends telling me they think Taft is weak for not starting WW III w/Pootie Tang for Crimea.

/notthisshiatagain.jpg

Fixed so it's clear what "it" referred to.

We had a thread about that poll before, and the number is still problematic since it is unclear what it actually says.

When 49 percent of people said "yes, it was mistake" they could have meant one (or both) of two things:

1) With the benefit of hindsight, the result of our actions we not what I wanted, and therefore I believe, given what I know now, that I would have preferred we took different action

2) Even given only what we knew then, but with the benefit of emotional distance, the decision was one we should not have made at the time.

I'd agree with the first point, that with how things turned out, it would have been better not to go to war. However I still believe that harboring Al Qaeda and allowing them to attack the US like they did was an act of war, and retaliation was appropriate. Given competent leadership I believe that the decision to go to war at the time would still be an appropriate response, and preferable to no military action. But given the poll's broad wording, I don't know what people meant by their response.

/oh, but no deaths is undeniably great, it's just sad that it's news, it should be the other way.

Exactly, that is the problem with polls and questions like that. It captures opinions and views after consequences have occurred and mistakes have been realized even if the fundamental decisions at the time were sound (not saying it applies here but you can make all the right decisions and still have horrible outcomes because the enemy does get to make choices as well). It is incredibly easy to Monday morning quarterback and point to all the knowledge you have now and call the people who made the horrible decisions foolish or worse.

Afghanistan was necessary to fight. Was it necessary to remain after the first year, that is up for debate. We can't see what would have happened or where public opinion would have been if the Taliban reasserted themselves, started subjugating women and children and harboring more terrorists who may have gone on to commit further harm on the US or elsewhere. Certainly it would have been easy for the world to condemn the US and western powers for destroying a nation and then leaving it to a reasserted Taliban or violent civil war to continue to destroy millions of lives under their oppressive government. It is much easier to delude yourself into thinking the world would have been sunshine and puppies everywhere if a given action hadn't been taken without considering what other actors involved would have done or been able to do in response and what would have happened in the aftermath.

I am not saying the situation would have been better or worse. It is difficult to figure out what may have happened if Afghanistan had been a limited operation rather than an occupation and nation building. I think the evidence suggests that lives for some in Afghanistan have been improved despite the conflict although whether this improvement is worth the costs in terms of blood and treasure is highly debatable compared to the status quo. However asking if a given decision was a mistake or not certainly isn't a fair or revealing question and should be discounted by all. Of course if it helps with a certain political viewpoint or attack strategy then you are going to jump on it because flawed data can still damage your political foes.

Obama will probably take credit for this the way he did for killing bin Laden. I am proud to report that I have learned today that after I asked the joint chiefs of staff that there were no casualties in March yadayada long story short the guy is freakin black and his wife is a thug and his daughters are Hitler and his dog Bo Soetoro was born in a puppy mill where is the birth certifect.

nmrsnr:However I still believe that harboring Al Qaeda and allowing them to attack the US like they did was an act of war, and retaliation was appropriate.

You believe a terrorist cell was informing the Taliban of its plans, and that the Taliban had the final say on whether or not their attack on the US could go ahead? Is there any evidence of this, because I don't remember hearing anything like this.

xria:nmrsnr: However I still believe that harboring Al Qaeda and allowing them to attack the US like they did was an act of war, and retaliation was appropriate.

You believe a terrorist cell was informing the Taliban of its plans, and that the Taliban had the final say on whether or not their attack on the US could go ahead? Is there any evidence of this, because I don't remember hearing anything like this.